www.ukbutterflies.co.uk

In the previous post there are several references to the need for a tripod and also the weight of the gear that has to be carried around. I'm not a fan of tripods or monopods and on several occasion have extolled the virtues of IS lenses. Whilst wandering around the photographic web sites I came upon rather a good demonstration of how effective an IS system is and although the purpose of the you-tube video is to compare IS systems built into the camera or the lens in my opinion it shows just how good they are.
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Olymp ... 50mm.shtml

Go to the You-tube video at the bottom of the page for the demo
Cheers
Dave

Until Canon release an image-stabilised macro lens, I don't really have a choice. I will say that the virtues of a tripod go beyond image sharpness. The extra time results in more thought out composition, too.

Most of the best photographers on this site extol the virtues of tripods or monopods and while I can appreciate the potential advantages they offer, I just find they slow the process down to the extent that 9 times out of 10, the butterfly has gone before I'm ready to shoot. Is it just me or do others suffer the same difficulties?

David Tipping wrote:Most of the best photographers on this site extol the virtues of tripods or monopods and while I can appreciate the potential advantages they offer, I just find they slow the process down to the extent that 9 times out of 10, the butterfly has gone before I'm ready to shoot. Is it just me or do others suffer the same difficulties?

I think anyone would suffer the same problem - no matter how good a tripod you had! I think the fundamental distinction here is the difference between always getting a shot that is, at best, "above average" and getting a shot that is excellent.

To generalise - the "above average" shot is what you get with a handheld camera. The excellent shot is with a tripod. There is no doubt that, with a tripod and a subject that isn't moving around in a breeze, that you can get a better shot - since you can decrease the shutter speed (= more light) and, as a result, decrease the aperture (= less light) to get more depth of field = more of the subject in focus. 10% of the time you can set things up in time and get that "excellent" shot.

I hope this rambling makes sense! Personally, I think I've gotten most of the "record" shots I need and am looking for those "excellent" shots that are also more creative. But boy - is it frustrating!

Cheers,

- Pete

I was recently persuaded by a Dutch colleague to use the cheap tripod that I had had for a year and had steadfastly refused to use, for much the same reasons. I spend the summers in the south of France where the temperature is usually above 30 C (often above 35C) and travelling light is a big priority.

However… I tried using it and compared the results with hand-held shots. I shoot in RAW with a file size of 3504x2336 pixels and you can clearly see the difference, especially if you look at the legs, head and margin hairs. I would suggest getting a cheap tripod (mine was £30) and persevering with it. If you just don’t get on with it, it’s not a great loss (in terms of the cost of camera equipment). If you attach the camera to the tripod (my Canon 20D has a convenient snap-on collar), it saves a lot of time when the shot presents itself. Setting the legs and using the head controls are largely a matter of experience, and it does get easier with practice. There is a downside, of course: the tripod clattered as I set it up for a great shot of a lesser purple emperor, with the inevitable result.

In July I put up some photos I took earlier this year using a tripod on the Overseas topic board (spring butterflies – obviously not the right heading, given the low number of views), and I’m sure the photos wouldn’t have had the detail level (and bear in mind that a lot of resolution is lost reducing to an 800pixel-width jpeg) if they had been hand-held, especially as the Canon 20D plus Sigma 150mm macro combination weighs over 1.5kg.

I've been trying to photograph butterflies for the best part of 15 years and always felt that the ideal solution would be to do without a tripod or monopod. After all, these are highly mobile insects and being able to follow, say, a feeding butterfly as it moves from flower to flower, would give the best chance of getting the most true-to-life shots of living, active butterflies - rather than just relying on capturing static poses such as roosting or dew covered insects.

Back in the days when I used an Olympus OM2 it was just impossible. Slow slide film, poor fill-in flash technology, lack of auto-focus etc made it next to impossible. Now, I feel, things are different. A modern DSLR allows the use of higher ISOs, crop sensor cameras give an apparently longer focal length (lighter, easier to hold), auto-focus increases the chance of getting a sharp result and, in the case of the Nikon 105mm VR lens, you have technology that reduces the chance of hand shake (and it works, even at close range).

Over the last two years, I've taken many images that I would previously have thought impossible. As the technology improves, it will increase still further the chances of getting excellent, rather than merely acceptable results, hand held.

For me, the only current limitations are that my Nikon cameras get a bit too noisy at ISO400 and up (which means that on occasion, subject movement is likely due to the slower speeds I'm forced to use), and that the auto-focus, while good could still be improved (e.g. smaller, more accurate, better positioned sensors). The newly announced Nikon D300 looks likely to address at least one if not both of these issues and I can't wait to try it out... though goodness knows how I'd afford one!

Of course, all this technology doesn't make you a better photographer. Judging good composition and knowing when to press the shutter to capture that "decisive moment" are as important as ever, and it's possible that being forced to slow down and be more considered, might help in these areas. But for me, I welcome whole-heartedly the opportunities to hand-hold offered by the new technology. And I'd challenge anyone to produce significantly sharper images using a tripod than my equipment does without one.

Sorry this is such a lengthy reply - I don't know what came over me!

Best wishes

Malcolm